Third Circuit disposition — 242019np-pdf

DLD-150 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-2019
___________
IN RE: JOSEPH CAMMARATA,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Related to E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2:21-cv-04845)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
July 11, 2024
Before: JORDAN, PORTER, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 22, 2024)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Joseph Cammarata, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
compelling the District Court to dissolve an injunction freezing his assets. For the
reasons that follow, we will deny the mandamus petition.
In October 2022, Cammarata was convicted in federal court of wire fraud and
other crimes based on his submission of false claims to securities class action claims
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
administrators. Cammarata was sentenced in June 2023 to ten years in prison with
monetary liability totaling over 48 million dollars. See E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 2:21-cr-
00427. His appeal is pending. See C.A. No. 23-2110.
Shortly after the indictment was filed, the Securities and Exchange Commission
filed a civil action against Cammarata and other defendants based on the same conduct.
The SEC claimed violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
§§ 78j(b), 78t(e), and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, and moved for a temporary restraining
order to freeze Cammarata’s assets. The District Court issued a TRO. In January 2022,
pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction
that extended the relief in the TRO. Cammarata was represented by counsel. In July
2022, the District Court granted his motion to proceed pro se.
The civil action was stayed during Cammarata’s criminal proceedings. On August
31, 2023, the District Court granted the SEC’s motion for summary judgment as to
Cammarata’s liability. On January 23, 2024, the District Court issued a final judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Among other remedies, the District
Court ruled that Cammarata’s payment obligation to the SEC was $2,701,793.98, an
amount that was offset by the restitution and forfeiture orders in his criminal case. The
Court retained jurisdiction for enforcement purposes.1
1 In a separate order, the District Court denied Cammarata’s motion for recusal.
Cammarata’s appeal of that ruling is pending. See C.A. No. 24-1381.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Cammarata then filed a motion to dismiss the SEC’s complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and, in the alternative, for relief from the order granting summary
judgment in favor of the SEC. The District Court denied relief on April 2, 2024. It
rejected, among other things, Cammarata’s contention that it had never ruled on his
summary judgment motion.
Cammarata also moved to dissolve the asset freeze on March 7, 2024. The SEC
opposed the motion and moved to lift the freeze for the limited purpose of collecting its
judgment. In response to a District Court order, the United States and Nina Cammarata,
an intervenor and Cammarata’s ex-wife, also opposed lifting the asset freeze except to the
extent necessary to satisfy the judgments against him. The United States, the SEC, and
Nina Cammarata then moved to preserve the status quo. They had reached an agreement
as to the allocation of the frozen assets and requested additional time to finalize it. On
June 14, 2024, the District Court granted that motion.
A few days before the District Court issued its order preserving the status quo,
Cammarata filed a mandamus petition in this Court. He challenges the legality of the
TRO that froze his assets and its conversion to a preliminary injunction. He also asserts
that the District Court has not addressed his motion for summary judgment. Cammarata
seeks a writ compelling the District Court to dissolve the injunction freezing his assets.
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 353
F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003). A petitioner must show that he has no other adequate
means to obtain relief, that he has a clear and indisputable right to the writ, and that the

-- 3 of 4 --

4
writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190
(2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] writ of
mandamus may not issue if a petitioner can obtain relief by appeal.” Madden v. Myers,
102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996).
Cammarata has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to a writ or that he
has no other adequate means to obtain relief. To the extent he challenges the validity of
the orders freezing his assets, the parties stipulated to the preliminary injunction. And
Cammarata has not shown that pursuing a timely appeal from the final judgment, or an
appeal from a post-judgment order involving the frozen assets, is inadequate. Cammarata
states that he needs funds to hire counsel; however, the District Court has entertained
filings seeking the partial release of funds for this purpose.
To the extent the District Court has yet to address Cammarata’s motion to dissolve
the asset freeze, there has not been undue delay warranting mandamus relief. See
Madden, 102 F.3d at 78. And, insofar as Cammarata contends that the District Court has
not ruled on his motion for summary judgment, the District Court addressed that
contention in its April 2, 2024, order, which Cammarata has appealed.
Accordingly, we will deny Cammarata’s mandamus petition.2
2 Cammarata’s emergency motion to intervene is also denied.

-- 4 of 4 --